The Problem
A complex automated proteomics and NGS library prep workflow was experiencing high failure rates in customer labs. Much of the automated workflow had been inherited from an external partner. The assay was technically strong, but the workflow had not been designed by a team experienced in automation, operator interaction, or scaled customer execution.
The risk was not isolated to one broken step. It was distributed across the system. Well-intended design choices were creating fragility because they had never been tested against real automated execution, operator behavior, and customer deployment.
- Automation crashes linked to unnecessary lid handling steps that added mechanical complexity without assay value
- Manual pipetting embedded in a workflow intended to scale through automation
- Consumable burden that increased cost, waste, and setup complexity
- Deck movement patterns that increased flyover and contamination risk
- Software prompts that did not sufficiently guide operators through risk-prone steps
- Workflow decisions driven by caution rather than data-driven risk assessment
Integration & Risk Assessment Approach
Led a system-level assessment across assay, automation, consumables, software, user workflow, and customer-facing documentation. The work focused on identifying where inherited design choices created unnecessary risk, then converting those risks into targeted changes.
"The system was not failing because one component was broken. It was failing because inherited design choices created risk between components."
- Mapped failure modes across the end-to-end automated workflow
- Challenged caution-based design choices against actual assay and performance requirements
- Removed unnecessary lid handling steps that were driving automation crashes
- Reduced manual pipetting steps and consolidated consumables where technically validated
- Redesigned deck layout and movement patterns to reduce contamination risk
- Improved operator guidance through clearer software prompts and customer-facing documentation
- Aligned assay, automation, software, and field support teams around risk-reducing changes
Outcomes
- Failure rate reduced from 20% to 0.4%
- Manual pipetting reduced by 64%
- Total consumable items reduced by 40% (63 items to 38)
- User interactions reduced 15%
- Automation crashes reduced by removing unnecessary lid handling
- Contamination risk reduced through improved deck layout and movement patterns
Why This Worked
The system was not failing because one component was broken. It was failing because inherited design choices created risk between components.
Some workflow decisions looked conservative on paper but created unnecessary fragility in practice. The lids were not protecting the workflow; they were creating failure points. Removing those choices required distinguishing true assay risk from inherited complexity, then redesigning the system around what the workflow actually needed to perform reliably at scale.